Title: Homo Toxicus Director: Carole Poliquin Release year: 2008 What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of this film is that our current rush for industrial progress has lead to the release of toxic chemicals into our environment. A majority of these chemicals are owned by large corporations claiming to improve our lifestyles, food and overall health. These toxins and chemicals, many of which have not even been reviewed by the EPA and other environmentally conscious government organizations, are finding their way into our genetic make-up and are causing health defects.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Science A major sustainability problem presented by this film is the difficulty of developing a science of chemical exposures and toxicology. The difficulty is that there are an incredible number of different variables that come into play and some effects take a very long time to appear. It is nearly impossible for scientists to produce any single test with a definitive answer to whether a chemical is safe. These substances can react in any number of ways to cause problems and we cannot simply isolate any single target. If we test the effects on a larger system any result becomes less definitive since there are so many more variables present. Furthermore, the necessary time required for the effects of some chemicals are longer than it is possible to run any experiment for. Some forms of cancer, for example can take up to 25 years to develop. It certainly isn’t easy to run an experiment for this long and with as many new chemicals enter the market all the time, we would need and incredible infrastructure to perform these kinds of tests. Another problem is where the funding for scientific research comes from. Funding usually comes from one of two sources; the government or corporations. Corporate funded research clearly has bias towards the economic potential that products could have and not necessarily safety. The outcomes of this research often don’t match that of other scientific sources. The film argues that much of this research is intentionally doctored to fit the corporation’s agenda. Government funded research is more impartial, but is certainly incapable of testing every chemical in every possible situation. In the end we come to an equal important part of the scientific process; determining what the results mean. The amount of research necessary to prove the causation of a disease is staggering. In most cases the best that scientists can hope for is proof of correlation. This result is much more open to interpretation and debate. This allows corporations the ability to fight the results of science. The result of these many difficulties is that many of the chemical substances out on the market have either not been tested at all or insufficiently tested for safety. Risk Management The government’s reaction the problems caused by chemical pollution is also a sustainability problem. Where the European Union, Canada, and other countries put bans on chemicals if there is any risk present at all, the United States won’t ban them if the risk is manageable. These two policies are fundamentally different and the latter can be very dangerous. There are several chemicals on the market today that the US government agrees can cause health problems, but their reasoning is that as long as long as exposure levels are low there shouldn’t be any problems. This is very scary because as we continue to release chemicals into the environment, even in small levels, they have to go somewhere. Many of these chemicals find other ways up the food chain and accumulate in the top consumers, us. Women’s’ milk has some of the highest levels of toxic chemicals found due to this biomagnification. It is a very fine line between what is acceptable and what is dangerous in terms of chemical exposures and as time goes on the risks only get bigger. Control over Environment Another import sustainability problem addressed in the movie is that of how much control we have over our environments. Many people are forced to accept work and living conditions that they have little or no control over. In some cases this can lead to high levels of chemical exposure. The Inuit, for example, rely upon a heavily seafood based diet to survive. As a result this population is seeing some of the worst effects of mercury poisoning and other chemicals. The Inuit certainly weren’t the ones who put all of that mercury into the ocean environment, but they having to suffer its consequences. The film also suggests that there is a direct connection between a person’s affluence and their chemical exposure levels. This is not hard to believe since the lower class workers feel the most pressure to take whatever jobs and living conditions they can get. These effects can be most clearly seen in male sperm counts. Furthermore, many consumers are completely unaware that they are assuming any risk by purchasing products. Do you think about the risk you are assuming as you go out and buy shampoo or groceries, for example? Most people don’t and this is exactly why companies can get away with creating these risks. If any potentially hazardous product was required to be labeled as such it would be a completely different story. The American government doesn’t require this however. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The most compelling part of the film is the vast amount of scientific information presented. There was a lot of information in the film about the vast array of chemicals in our environment. Even though there was an emphasis on scientific fact, it was not too dry. I also found that including many scientific experts was very persuasive. I especially liked how the film considered both sides of the debate. The pathos in the film were also very compelling. Just seeing the effects that chemicals have on different communities was amazing and very scary. I would find it hard to believe that after seeing that movie anyone wouldn’t be concerned about their own chemical intake. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The least compelling part of the film was its general lack of hope. It is disheartening that this issue is so widely spread and cannot be undone. The film did not provide any real suggestions as to how one might go around attempting to fix this issue; likely because there really aren’t any. This doesn’t leave the viewer wanting to take action, it just make them afraid.
What audiences does the film best address? Why? This film definitely addresses a more mature audience. Because the concepts in this film are rather scary I would not recommend showing it to a younger audience. It definitely targets consumers and those who can take political action. I would not show it to anyone below the college age because it isn’t even something kids can think about having control over and would only breed fear in them. A solid educational background is also important to put some of the film in context because it is fairly radical.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The environmental educational value of this film would have been better if it had included a short analysis of a few specific chemicals which could be potentially dangerous to consumers. After watching the film I knew I should be careful of what I consumed, but I don’t have the time to do all the research on the chemicals in everything I buy. A brief list of a few chemicals that should be avoided and generally what products they can be found in would be very helpful to know.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. While the film was very educational, there were not many points of intervention or action suggested. Additional research was pushed as an important issue, as well as the role of governments in legislation and regulation. These two things are incredibly difficult to influence on an individual level, but activism and political involvement can certainly help. The best thing to do on an individual level is to be careful of what you are consuming and what products you are using. Again, this is difficult because most products aren’t labeled, but the best we can do is be educated consumers. The best thing to do now that we understand the problem is use our political and consumerism power to put pressure on governments and industry.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? This film compelled me to seek out information regarding what chemicals can be found in the items that I use on a regular basis. A very brief search led me to http://www.naturalne ws.com/003210.html . The site contains information about chemical products found in many personal hygiene products. The part the hit home for me was concerning the chemical Methylisothiazoline (MIT). This substance has been found to cause neurological damage in mice and rats. According to the article, Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner all contain this ingredient (at least one of which I confirmed myself). Another website I found was http://www.achooallergy.com/article-toxic-chemicals.asp . This site investigates toxic chemicals that can be found in deodorant. I disgusting and very scary how many different ones there are! One example is Propylene glycol. This chemical keeps the deodorant from drying out and it was originally developed as an anti-freeze. Propylene glycol is neurotoxin known to cause kidney and liver damage. In the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for propylene glycol, warns workers to avoid skin contact with the toxic chemical, and yet millions of people apply it under their arms every day.
Director: Carole Poliquin
Release year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that our current rush for industrial progress has lead to the release of toxic chemicals into our environment. A majority of these chemicals are owned by large corporations claiming to improve our lifestyles, food and overall health. These toxins and chemicals, many of which have not even been reviewed by the EPA and other environmentally conscious government organizations, are finding their way into our genetic make-up and are causing health defects.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Science
A major sustainability problem presented by this film is the difficulty of developing a science of chemical exposures and toxicology. The difficulty is that there are an incredible number of different variables that come into play and some effects take a very long time to appear. It is nearly impossible for scientists to produce any single test with a definitive answer to whether a chemical is safe. These substances can react in any number of ways to cause problems and we cannot simply isolate any single target. If we test the effects on a larger system any result becomes less definitive since there are so many more variables present. Furthermore, the necessary time required for the effects of some chemicals are longer than it is possible to run any experiment for. Some forms of cancer, for example can take up to 25 years to develop. It certainly isn’t easy to run an experiment for this long and with as many new chemicals enter the market all the time, we would need and incredible infrastructure to perform these kinds of tests. Another problem is where the funding for scientific research comes from. Funding usually comes from one of two sources; the government or corporations. Corporate funded research clearly has bias towards the economic potential that products could have and not necessarily safety. The outcomes of this research often don’t match that of other scientific sources. The film argues that much of this research is intentionally doctored to fit the corporation’s agenda. Government funded research is more impartial, but is certainly incapable of testing every chemical in every possible situation. In the end we come to an equal important part of the scientific process; determining what the results mean. The amount of research necessary to prove the causation of a disease is staggering. In most cases the best that scientists can hope for is proof of correlation. This result is much more open to interpretation and debate. This allows corporations the ability to fight the results of science. The result of these many difficulties is that many of the chemical substances out on the market have either not been tested at all or insufficiently tested for safety.
Risk Management
The government’s reaction the problems caused by chemical pollution is also a sustainability problem. Where the European Union, Canada, and other countries put bans on chemicals if there is any risk present at all, the United States won’t ban them if the risk is manageable. These two policies are fundamentally different and the latter can be very dangerous. There are several chemicals on the market today that the US government agrees can cause health problems, but their reasoning is that as long as long as exposure levels are low there shouldn’t be any problems. This is very scary because as we continue to release chemicals into the environment, even in small levels, they have to go somewhere. Many of these chemicals find other ways up the food chain and accumulate in the top consumers, us. Women’s’ milk has some of the highest levels of toxic chemicals found due to this biomagnification. It is a very fine line between what is acceptable and what is dangerous in terms of chemical exposures and as time goes on the risks only get bigger.
Control over Environment
Another import sustainability problem addressed in the movie is that of how much control we have over our environments. Many people are forced to accept work and living conditions that they have little or no control over. In some cases this can lead to high levels of chemical exposure. The Inuit, for example, rely upon a heavily seafood based diet to survive. As a result this population is seeing some of the worst effects of mercury poisoning and other chemicals. The Inuit certainly weren’t the ones who put all of that mercury into the ocean environment, but they having to suffer its consequences. The film also suggests that there is a direct connection between a person’s affluence and their chemical exposure levels. This is not hard to believe since the lower class workers feel the most pressure to take whatever jobs and living conditions they can get. These effects can be most clearly seen in male sperm counts. Furthermore, many consumers are completely unaware that they are assuming any risk by purchasing products. Do you think about the risk you are assuming as you go out and buy shampoo or groceries, for example? Most people don’t and this is exactly why companies can get away with creating these risks. If any potentially hazardous product was required to be labeled as such it would be a completely different story. The American government doesn’t require this however.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling part of the film is the vast amount of scientific information presented. There was a lot of information in the film about the vast array of chemicals in our environment. Even though there was an emphasis on scientific fact, it was not too dry. I also found that including many scientific experts was very persuasive. I especially liked how the film considered both sides of the debate. The pathos in the film were also very compelling. Just seeing the effects that chemicals have on different communities was amazing and very scary. I would find it hard to believe that after seeing that movie anyone wouldn’t be concerned about their own chemical intake.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The least compelling part of the film was its general lack of hope. It is disheartening that this issue is so widely spread and cannot be undone. The film did not provide any real suggestions as to how one might go around attempting to fix this issue; likely because there really aren’t any. This doesn’t leave the viewer wanting to take action, it just make them afraid.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film definitely addresses a more mature audience. Because the concepts in this film are rather scary I would not recommend showing it to a younger audience. It definitely targets consumers and those who can take political action. I would not show it to anyone below the college age because it isn’t even something kids can think about having control over and would only breed fear in them. A solid educational background is also important to put some of the film in context because it is fairly radical.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The environmental educational value of this film would have been better if it had included a short analysis of a few specific chemicals which could be potentially dangerous to consumers. After watching the film I knew I should be careful of what I consumed, but I don’t have the time to do all the research on the chemicals in everything I buy. A brief list of a few chemicals that should be avoided and generally what products they can be found in would be very helpful to know.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
While the film was very educational, there were not many points of intervention or action suggested. Additional research was pushed as an important issue, as well as the role of governments in legislation and regulation. These two things are incredibly difficult to influence on an individual level, but activism and political involvement can certainly help. The best thing to do on an individual level is to be careful of what you are consuming and what products you are using. Again, this is difficult because most products aren’t labeled, but the best we can do is be educated consumers. The best thing to do now that we understand the problem is use our political and consumerism power to put pressure on governments and industry.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
This film compelled me to seek out information regarding what chemicals can be found in the items that I use on a regular basis. A very brief search led me to http://www.naturalne ws.com/003210.html . The site contains information about chemical products found in many personal hygiene products. The part the hit home for me was concerning the chemical Methylisothiazoline (MIT). This substance has been found to cause neurological damage in mice and rats. According to the article, Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner all contain this ingredient (at least one of which I confirmed myself). Another website I found was http://www.achooallergy.com/article-toxic-chemicals.asp . This site investigates toxic chemicals that can be found in deodorant. I disgusting and very scary how many different ones there are! One example is Propylene glycol. This chemical keeps the deodorant from drying out and it was originally developed as an anti-freeze. Propylene glycol is neurotoxin known to cause kidney and liver damage. In the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for propylene glycol, warns workers to avoid skin contact with the toxic chemical, and yet millions of people apply it under their arms every day.